Aaah! Thanks Rich. I'm a little new to this style of combative research. I know that Flemings were the major castle builders in Scotland (& destroyers, for that matter). Jordan Fantosme describes Flemish mercenaries at the siege of Brough Castle, Cumberland, fighting for William the Lion. I thought it was generally accepted that the Angles' descendants had ventured up the Scottish east coast? Too early for a drink!Cheers,Bob

Well I consider your words on the subject to be balanced and reasonable, in that as you assert so confidently R U106 may well have entered the Isles prior to later Germanic movements, moreover you are correct too in asserting that a person belonging to L21 is not by definition of Celtic descent. Of course the degree to which this may be the case is a matter of opinion and debate and no doubt those seeking to force a horned helmet onto all R U 106 would seek to argue the case. However such discussion remains as noted previously at best in an arena of speculation, albeit informed or supported by statistical analysis. So we are left with opinion and chosen interpretation, hence some insist L21 as being definitively 'Celtic' others choose to retain a more open mind on such subjects, including as evidenced by your comments, our esteemed Moderator. I agree also that those who have an emotional investment to attach themselves to say L 21 as being Celtic should review such an attachment, my position is indifferent as I am simply noting the folly of asserting as fact, what in truth is merely informed opinion and reasoned speculation.

As to Flemish settlement in those regions of Scotland during the 12/13th Centuries, may well be the case, however it is a leap of considerable distance to then claim that the degree of R U 106 in NE Scotland is therefore all due to such settlement.Such an assertion, to be considered with any seriousness, would require some meaningful evidence and testing to establish, scientifically, the case or not. Until that is possible we are forced to rely upon 'likely-hood' which of itself cannot in any empirical sense support a conclusion one way or another. Given that we should not dismiss alternative perspectives or models which may account for the Haplogroup's presence in that region.

Regarding 'Ah the Flemish fisherman explanation' sorry to disappoint but the reference had nothing to with dark. covert efforts to misrepresent, but arose spontaneously with the humorous thought of Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau intoning that. :)

No emotional attachment to being Celtic on my part. In fact, I grew up thinking I was some kind of Germanic. I always thought Vikings and Germanic barbarians were cool. When I submitted my first 37-marker y-dna test sample, I expected and was hoping for an I1 (I-M253, called "I1a" back then) result. When I got an "R1b1" result (that was as far as they went in May of 2006), I was a little disappointed, but not too awfully much.

About that time, the distribution of "S21" (U106) was becoming known and was widely discussed on Rootsweb and elsewhere. The more that became known about it, the more it looked Germanic (that trend hasn't changed). Back then, only Ethnoancestry had a test for S21, which was called the "S Series". It also included S28 (U152), S26 (L1), and S29 (U198). I was excited about that, like many other R1b guys, so I ordered the S Series test. Needless to say, I came up negative for the whole thing. When FTDNA added tests for U106 and U152, I tested with them, as well. The results merely confirmed Ethnoancestry's findings.

For a couple of years thereafter, I and many men like me were stuck at R-M269, which was known as "R1b1c*" back then. Someone on dna-forums called us the "Lost Asterisk Boys" (but I can't remember who that was; it might have been Mike). Then P312 came along in early 2008 and, subsequently, in late October of the same year, L21.

It soon became clear what the distribution of L21 in Europe was. Rather than hold onto some childish desire to be a Viking, an Anglo-Saxon, a Goth, or a Vandal, I just rolled with reality and accepted what the evidence showed.

I guess it was probably relatively easy for me, being an American, since my attachment to the Germanic/Viking thing wasn't all that strong. It was really just a holdover from childhood, more of an attachment to something I thought of as fun and kind of macho cool. I also think it is relatively easy to switch from one sense of Northern European identity to another. I have encountered people on various dna chat forums who have had to deal with far more radical reassessments.

Regarding 'Ah the Flemish fisherman explanation' sorry to disappoint but the reference had nothing to with dark. covert efforts to misrepresent, but arose spontaneously with the humorous thought of Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau intoning that. :)

I think Herge's Tintin, while not as amusing, would tick the box nicely!!!Cheers,Bob

How does Anthony come to these conclusions does that mean that Q-Italic is older than P-Italic?What evidence is there for an italo-Celtic language?

He cites "most comparative studies" in the sentence I quoted from page 55 of his book.

That would do it, I'm guessing.

Get his book and read it, if you haven't.

Other reputable scholars (not Paleolithic-Celtic weirdos) have believed that it was the Beaker Folk who brought an early form of Celtic to the British Isles and elsewhere. That's what Chadwick and Dillon say in their book, The Celtic Realms. That is also what Hubert said in his book.

I believe Koch puts the origin of Celtic back in the Bronze Age, as well.

As to the pretty maps they are helpful indicators, but limited in the sense of being derived from statistics which may or may not be flawed, self-selective or partial. As such they give a flavor only, not conclusive proof. As was noted elsewhere, a problem with these theories is that they look at modern populations, not those of Europe about several thousand years ago when P312 and L21 may likely have first emerged.

Regarding those who belong to L21 who wish to consider themselves to be 'Celtic' go ahead its a free world, it may run contrary to the genetic lineage of individuals who surely have a number of contributing Haplogroups and various Clades in their familiy ancestry but never let such inconvenience get in the way of choosing to associate oneself with a specific ancient ethnology.

Those in Ireland would also need to examine with care the paucity of La Tene or Halstatt archaeology before accepting as truth the troubling equation that runs L21 dominates in Ireland, that country is 'Celtic' therefore L21 is 'Celtic' Indeed people no doubt arrived and established a population base in that land long before the establishment of 'Celtic' culture

I'm not sure I'm picking up your point? I happen to believe that all R -L21 is not celtic. From what I understand the Urnfield culture is the source of Celticity? If true, and since I also believe that R - L21 is older than the Urnfield culture, then by those inferences there are R- L21's who indeed not celtic.

I know broad generalizations are subject to skepticism, but every time I've looked at R1b, I am struck by the fact that there were two main streams from about P 312 on. That is a group characterized by a 10 at 391 and one characterized by a 11. 391 is a moderately slow mutator so this observation isn't carved in stone. In more modern times c. 0 AD, I would say the 10 characterized the Belgic tribes and the 11 the Gaulish tribes.

With Y STR nomenclature we are creating a new lexicon of words. Trying to fit them into the historical framework requires at least the consideration of time and possibly location as names often changed as either on of these terms changed.

I am not possessive about any interpretive aspects on the subject, as I hoped was clear from my comments, I am trying to fly the flag for maintaining an open mind on this matter. In that context of course the points you raise are a welcome insight and as valid as any other.

...I know broad generalizations are subject to skepticism, but every time I've looked at R1b, I am struck by the fact that there were two main streams from about P 312 on. That is a group characterized by a 10 at 391 and one characterized by a 11. 391 is a moderately slow mutator so this observation isn't carved in stone. In more modern times c. 0 AD, I would say the 10 characterized the Belgic tribes and the 11 the Gaulish tribes. ...

I respectfully disagree that DYS391 is that important of a divider. It is obvious that it has mutated from 11 to 10 in many, many lineages of L21 separately. It can not be used as indicative of some deep, ancient branching. SNPs like DF13, or like DF21, Z253, L513, DF49, are more useful for this purpose.

People complain that L69 is unstable because it may have four or five independent occurrences under L21. DYS391 mutations are many, many times more frequent within L21.

How does Anthony come to these conclusions does that mean that Q-Italic is older than P-Italic?What evidence is there for an italo-Celtic language?

He cites "most comparative studies" in the sentence I quoted from page 55 of his book.

That would do it, I'm guessing.

Get his book and read it, if you haven't.

Other reputable scholars (not Paleolithic-Celtic weirdos) have believed that it was the Beaker Folk who brought an early form of Celtic to the British Isles and elsewhere. That's what Chadwick and Dillon say in their book, The Celtic Realms. That is also what Hubert said in his book.

I believe Koch puts the origin of Celtic back in the Bronze Age, as well.

Koch puts it back in the late bronze age! Problem with the Beaker folk idea is that you would expect a far greater diversity than is observed particularly concerning Brittonic and Gaulish.

There is ample opputunity for there to have been an immigration dueing the Bronze age collapse and the trasnsition to the early iron age.

"There are all sorts of explanations that people have suggested, including climatic change, environmental destruction caused by over-exploitation or even internal revolution by the exploited peasantry.

"Alternatively, it could be external invasions - there is no generally agreed explanation for what looks like a major event."

...I know broad generalizations are subject to skepticism, but every time I've looked at R1b, I am struck by the fact that there were two main streams from about P 312 on. That is a group characterized by a 10 at 391 and one characterized by a 11. 391 is a moderately slow mutator so this observation isn't carved in stone. In more modern times c. 0 AD, I would say the 10 characterized the Belgic tribes and the 11 the Gaulish tribes. ...

I respectfully disagree that DYS391 is that important of a divider. It is obvious that it has mutated from 11 to 10 in many, many lineages of L21 separately. It can not be used as indicative of some deep, ancient branching. SNPs like DF13, or like DF21, Z253, L513, DF49, are more useful for this purpose.

People complain that L69 is unstable because it may have four or five independent occurrences under L21. DYS391 mutations are many, many times more frequent within L21.

That is the purpose of the SNPs to help us better understand the segmentation of the different historical cultures. Whoknows seems to be asking how well we are doing in assigning names to the SNP's we find and correlating them with the history/archaeology. Note the big disagreement on who is a Pict and Scotti.

I would love to have a name for R Z253? If you were to pick a name, which would you use.

My observation is mostly based on my studies of the different scottish clans. Its an observation, not a fact.

We not have a plethora of new SNP's, but other than a number how do we meaningfully label them? I would like to have something better than a 10 letter/number sequence that I can't remember.

I think Whonos question is appropriate at this time and points out the discontinuity between our ability to sort DNA out and our ability to correlate it with more common nomenclature.

A closer look at orthography and phonetics reveals a number of inconsistencies, even if Koch’s linguistic analysis is followed as far as possible. Thus, reconstructed Proto-Celtic (short) */e/ is taken to be variously written e, i and even ii, cf. i.ś */eχs-/ 'out of' (J.1.1), n.i.i.r.a.Po.o */nerabo/ 'belonging to the Neri' (J.1.1 – sic! for -abo is the feminine dative plural ending, thus the nominative plural should be */Nerās/).3 An ad hoc assumption of a phonetic change is sometimes visible.4 And the stem vowel of the o-declension fluctuates between o and a.5

As regards morphology, a strange combination of archaic and unexpected young traits can be observed. One example may serve as an illustration: the use of To.o */do/ 'to' (J.1.1) to reinforce the dative would be rather unusual for an ancient Celtic language.6

and this

To sum up, Koch’s analysis reflects the author’s superior scholarship, but is not really convincing. The reader is left with a number of inconsistencies, in form and content, ad hoc solutions and divergencies from the results of the other Hispano-Celtic sources. Nevertheless, it is a strong vote for a Celtic solution to the problem of Tartessian, and future research will not be able to avoid this approach. As in the case of Lusitanian, it may very well be a hybrid language with a non-Celtic matrix and extensive Celtic loanwords (as previously assumed by Francisco Villar) or vice versa.

A closer look at orthography and phonetics reveals a number of inconsistencies, even if Koch’s linguistic analysis is followed as far as possible. Thus, reconstructed Proto-Celtic (short) */e/ is taken to be variously written e, i and even ii, cf. i.ś */eχs-/ 'out of' (J.1.1), n.i.i.r.a.Po.o */nerabo/ 'belonging to the Neri' (J.1.1 – sic! for -abo is the feminine dative plural ending, thus the nominative plural should be */Nerās/).3 An ad hoc assumption of a phonetic change is sometimes visible.4 And the stem vowel of the o-declension fluctuates between o and a.5

As regards morphology, a strange combination of archaic and unexpected young traits can be observed. One example may serve as an illustration: the use of To.o */do/ 'to' (J.1.1) to reinforce the dative would be rather unusual for an ancient Celtic language.6

A closer look at orthography and phonetics reveals a number of inconsistencies, even if Koch’s linguistic analysis is followed as far as possible. Thus, reconstructed Proto-Celtic (short) */e/ is taken to be variously written e, i and even ii, cf. i.ś */eχs-/ 'out of' (J.1.1), n.i.i.r.a.Po.o */nerabo/ 'belonging to the Neri' (J.1.1 – sic! for -abo is the feminine dative plural ending, thus the nominative plural should be */Nerās/).3 An ad hoc assumption of a phonetic change is sometimes visible.4 And the stem vowel of the o-declension fluctuates between o and a.5

As regards morphology, a strange combination of archaic and unexpected young traits can be observed. One example may serve as an illustration: the use of To.o */do/ 'to' (J.1.1) to reinforce the dative would be rather unusual for an ancient Celtic language.6

I am no Linguist. Why would this occur?

I have no idea! Regarding Tartesian,I'm sure this was discussssed a few years ago on this forum!

On another forum, I've brought up a speculative thought on the direction of U106expansion driven by STR diversity calculations that I've done.

I've been finding for U106 "all" that:

- STR variance is about the same in Scandinavia as it is in England, actually,slightly lower (implying younger.)

- STR variance in Scandinavia is lower than in Germany.

- STR variance is higher in Poland (think Pomerania) than in Germany.

- I've tried to reconcile this with the fact that U106 is of low frequencyIreland. I've always thought that the Low Countries (Benelux) is so closed toEngland that U106, as a 4000 year-old (or more) haplogroup should have leakedover into the Isles and scattered to a greater degree to Ireland if U106 was inthe Low Countries and Scandinavia if U106 was in the Low Countries for a longperiod of time. Travel across the North Sea and Channel was not a problem forBronze Age Scandinavians or for many Bronze Age cultures.

>> My speculative supposition is that U106 must NOT have been in Scandinavia orin the Low Countries until some time shortly before BC. A good candidate forexpansion might be the Jastorf culture. This is an Iron Age material culture inwhat is now north Germany, spanning the 6th to 1st centuries BC. Some peoplethink the proto-Germanic language was founded here. I don't know, but from agenetic data perspective, it is viable that U106 was either south or east ofNorthern Germany prior to the Jastorf culture but became a founding element init. I1 might have come down from Scandinavia as another key founding element.Jastorf then expanded north up the Jutland Peninsula as well as west into theLow Countries. In this case, the Anglo-Saxon Invasion Era in England was justan extension of the drive west from Jastorf. This also implies that in theNordic Bronze Age, Scandinavia was light on U106, not necessarily devoid though.I'd also say the same could be true for Ireland. This does not mean zero U106didn't leak over to there.

A closer look at orthography and phonetics reveals a number of inconsistencies, even if Koch’s linguistic analysis is followed as far as possible. Thus, reconstructed Proto-Celtic (short) */e/ is taken to be variously written e, i and even ii, cf. i.ś */eχs-/ 'out of' (J.1.1), n.i.i.r.a.Po.o */nerabo/ 'belonging to the Neri' (J.1.1 – sic! for -abo is the feminine dative plural ending, thus the nominative plural should be */Nerās/).3 An ad hoc assumption of a phonetic change is sometimes visible.4 And the stem vowel of the o-declension fluctuates between o and a.5

As regards morphology, a strange combination of archaic and unexpected young traits can be observed. One example may serve as an illustration: the use of To.o */do/ 'to' (J.1.1) to reinforce the dative would be rather unusual for an ancient Celtic language.6

I am no Linguist. Why would this occur?

I have no idea! Regarding Tartesian,I'm sure this was discussssed a few years ago on this forum!

Could this be a big jump geographically, from the eastern edge to western edge of the centum-satem dialectal division?

Interesting food for thought, but with a distinct whiff of bratwurst and all R U 106 is 'Germanic', a sort of mirror image to topic of the thread, which in essence questions if all L21 is really 'Celtic'. Of course as noted in an earlier post, while some patterns, and current frequency distributions and locations may suggest that, we cannot in any genuinely scientific sense affirm that as a definitive truth. We have after all only informed speculation and extrapolated statistics when trying to force any ancient culture onto a particular Haplogroup. This appears to be so with L21 which some regard as a credential for 'Celtic-ness' that is clearly a very large assumption, as much as claiming that simply belonging to R U106 determines a lineage of Germanic origins. Both may of course equally be so for any individual, but to insist such for an entire population/Haplogroup is highly questionable.

The major event that takes place in this time span is the Roman conquest of Gaul, and the expansion of the Roman sphere to the Rhine (and for a brief period, beyond), as well as the effective end of the continental Celtic peoples as a separate culture. One can speculate now that the disruption of trade routes, and the disconnection of trade routes between Gallia and Germania also triggered a linguistic disjunction between the Celtic and Germanic peoples, and that these drastic changes, which brought about the language shifts that brought about the Common Germanic language in the wake of this.

Your position on that would I imagine find agreement with people,and surely having emerged before the birth of either Germanic or Celtic culture, the Haplogroups in question would have established themselves sufficiently to eventually adopt and consolidate either of those cultural identities. The area of debate rests not with that eminently reasonable model but in views that categorize L21 or R U106 as definitively 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' respectively, on the basis of present frequency and distribution. It is an alluring position and I can see how persuasive it is to some, yet in order to accept that perspective as valid there appears to be a requirement to see R U106 as not able to cross the seas to the Isles or to sufficiently secure a presence there to create a lineage. Whereas P312/L21 we are asked to accept, without critique, was far more mobile, vigorous and unlike its DNA brother easily able to enter the Isles. Now I may have my thinking wrong on that but such a conclusion is making some colossal assumptions, which I guess lead to the understand that L21 is 'Celtic' and that belonging to that Haplogroup is proof positive of descending from a 'Celt'.

What doesn't help is we don't know enough about the distrubition of U106 sub-clades. From a phylogenical point of view U106 is at same level as P312. We rightly don't regard P312 as a single monolith mainly as we have a good idea of it's major sub-clades and their distrubition (DF27, U152, L21, L238 etc.)

In comparison studies such as Busby only used U106 and U198. If you look at the current tree you can see that the multiple dividing SNP's under U106, the distrubition of these older SNP's would be interesting.

In sceanrio where there were some early movement of U106 into Ireland and Britain you would expect that they would belong to subclades that may be somewhat different from what is seen in mainland Europe (due to age of spilt etc.)

Unfortantely until a new study is released we don't have any relevant data.